a question of history

[robin du bois]

I've been wondering what caliber flintlock rifles our forefathers carried in the field with them. I'm especially interested in the period between 1760 - 1820. Thanks for any knowledge you can share.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Welcome.

Somewhere around .32 to .62 caliber, generally.

Bigger earlier, then smaller, then back up to .54 & .58 when the buffalo hunters needed size & powder. Something under .40 cal would have been rare in 1760, but by 1800 average calibers were dipping to .50 and under.

You could throw me a bone and ask a specific date and area of the country. If there were bears and buffalo to be shot the calibers were larger. If long distances were needing to be walked and supplies were scarce the calibers might be smaller.

 

Wow! that is quite a time period! as was said earlier, just about any caliber could be found during that period--there was no real standardization. I tallied up the calibers (generally given back then as balls per pound of lead, so you've got to convert)for several hundred old rifles and "smoothrifles" and they ranged from .28 to .75 or so, but averaged about .48. There were several popular calibers represented by larger numbers than others in the distribution. 60 balls/pound was a popular one--about .43 using one conversion chart (relying on my memory here). Another popular bunch hovered around .49 and another around .53---thus the standard sizes we see today, .45, .50, .54 barrels using .44, .49 and .53 balls....

 

[robin du bois]

okay -- too vague? How about the rifle of choice for men who, like daniel boone, made a living hunting deer. Say 1750 - 1775.

You guys have a great deal of info and i thank you for taking the time.

 

[RussB]

Wow! that is quite a time period! as was said earlier, just about any caliber could be found during that period--there was no real standardization. I tallied up the calibers (generally given back then as balls per pound of lead, so you've got to convert)for several hundred old rifles and "smoothrifles" and they ranged from .28 to .75 or so, but averaged about .48. There were several popular calibers represented by larger numbers than others in the distribution. 60 balls/pound was a popular one--about .43 using one conversion chart (relying on my memory here). Another popular bunch hovered around .49 and another around .53---thus the standard sizes we see today, .45, .50, .54 barrels using .44, .49 and .53 balls....

Mike, I see you "touched" on something here that seems to cause a lot of confusion with some of the younger crowd when it comes to calibers in the old rifles. Perhaps more so in the "history" of muzzleloaders.
I will be the first to admit there were indeed some odd-ball calibers at one time. And, the stating of caliber by "Balls-to-the-pound" did nothing to clarify the caliber question, albeit that is real history, and accurate history.

It seems that many young people, especially those just getting started, think when they see the term .49 caliber, .53 caliber, or .57 caliber it was something "other" than what we are seeing today in our .50, .54, and .58 caliber,...Perhaps they are even seeing, or thinking of something special, or something that was rare and unique that is no longer made.
They scan through catalogs, read everything they can find, and they just can't find .53 caliber anything, anywhere.

I will be taking a young fellow Elk hunting this month. He has worked for me for a couple of months and is a pretty sharp young man. He informed me that he has believed what I just stated about calibers for the better part of his 35 years...He said he has actually been "looking" for a .53 caliber for a couple of years now....I was also informed by him that the majority of those in his age group, with the same interests, believe the same thing, and even argue amongst themselves about these rifles having been special built, and who might have built them.

When I sat him down a couple of months back, and explained how the caliber thingy works, by letting him use the mic...after teaching him how to read it...and letting him do the actual measurements, you would have thought I had shown him the location of the Holy Grail.
It was indeed a very gratifying experience for myself.

I had no idea there was so much confusion on this subject with the young people when they were reading historic accounts and trying, in their mind, to put things in prespective with todays world, and their experience with muzzleloaders, and what's available today.
But think about it...there it is in print, in black and white, even in a book format, and it clearly states the caliber was .53!.... Well, who wrote that book?.... None other than Ned Roberts, or "who-knows-who", and thats THE same authors everone considers as being the SME's! (Subject Matter Expert's)

A very small point to anyone who has been muzzleloading, or reading books for a while, but one that I feel that has led to some mis-interpertation in our teaching of the younger folks in the muzzleloading sport. It all leads to the point that there is just no such thing as "a dumb question".... After all, .53 and .54 is as different as day is night....or are they? :huh:

Just thinking out loud.
Russ

 

[Stumpkiller]

1750 to 1775 I would say .40 to .60, still a very wide range. But the Colonies went from Georgia to Maine and Ohio to Long Island at that time; and there was a lot of different cover and population levels then, too.

Boone's rifle, which is still in existence, was five feet three and a half inches long, of which the barrel was over four feet. It carried a round ball that weighed 55 to the pound, or 130 grains--15 more grains than a .32 Winchester. As the balls were round, however, the calibre was about .44. It weighed eleven pounds.

(you can tell that was an old article. Who uses a .32 Winchester as a point of reference now? :haha

Boone died in 1820, so he could have acquired that rifle anywhere from 1750 to 1819-1/2.

If you're lookin to find a rifle for pokin in Kain-Tuck-Yee :imo: it would seem a .44 to .54 wouldn't get you laughed off the dark and bloody ground. .44 is also what my state consideres the minimum of the deer capable sizes for a round ball. I like the .54 for hunting, and I'm sure back in Dan'l's day some preferred a bit of an edge as well.

 

[Rat]

I believe the answer is "somewhere around .50 caliber". I think that is what most surviving long rifles, from the "golden age" were.

Indeed, the Boone rifle sounds like one from later on, when market hunting for deer hides decreased, and rifle calibers generally went down a bit to .44/45 or smaller. Heck in some areas the deer were completely wiped out, and subsitance hunting would be small game...which would explain the many surviving .40 caliber rifles.

Then, as mentioned, when the frontier pushed out onto the plains, caliber, in general, on average, went up again to .50, .54 and .58. .54 would probably be the norm there, as I believe many heavy barreled rifles, intended for grizzly were usually .58 caliber.

Rat

 

[silverfox]

A lot of good questions. For the calibers 43,49,53,57 I agree a lot was given to round balls per pound. I can't see the forest for the trees. Sound familiar? What are we shooting today .43 ball 44 Cal. .490 Ball 50 cal. .530 ball 54 cal etc. can't see where the special rifles weren't just a different method of getting to the same place we are today. It's sad we have confused all them newbies.
Daniel Boones rifle, the supposed rifle that was owned by a Marshall Ralph Hooker and again that was supposed to have been(one) of Boones favorite hunting rifles was a .50 cal Flint he got when he moved from Kentucky to Missouri. Guess when he moved West he went to a larger cal. also. I would agree the older rifles were probable larger cal. and the average East coast late 1800's closer to squirrel size. Most of our forefathers west of the Mississippi seemed to like larger more powerfull arms and with good reasons.
Fox :thumbsup: :m2c:

 

I think alot of the old 'popular'calibers came from even numbers of balls per pound, e.g., 20 b/p = .62, 30 b/p = .54, 40 b/p = .49, 50 b/p = .45, 60 b/p = .43, 70 b/p = .40 and so on.....sounds alot like the modern caliber selection, doesn't it?